----- Original Message ----- From: "Trent Shipley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:45 PM Subject: Resolved: War is immoral.
> > However, as a conservative I do not for the life of me understand *WHY* > Israelis would trade land for security when they already have the *F____NG* > security. I read this sentence a number of times, discounted the shouting and the F word, and still cannot understand how this could be believed. In what sense is Israel secure? There are regular attacks on its civilian population, taking place in everyday places. Indeed, the whole purpose of terrorism is to eliminate the sense of security. When one cannot even gather for a Passover meal without looking over one's shoulder, I cannot see how they are secure. In the broader picture, they are a country of about 6 million, surrounded by more than a 100 million hostile people. Further, there is a natural economic incentive for the rest of the world to quietly look away while they are destroyed. Their economy is only 100 billion. The Arab economy around them is over 1.1 trillion. Plus, the Arabs control over half of the known oil reserves. The Arabs have made it clear that a "resolution" of the situation in Israel would lead to better relations with the world. At the present time, they have military superiority. But, they are still very vulnerable. They have to win _every_ conflict, the Arabs have to win only once. So, in what possible sense is Israel secure? The only sense I seem them secure is that there is a low probability they will all die in the next few years. >If you honestly believe that rational statesmen trade land when > they have absolutely *ZERO* incentive to do so then you are guilty of the > worst wooly-headed, liberal, utopianism. In my world view neither Israeli > nor Palestinian agents are goining to contravene political-economic > rationality that egregiously. The political-economic reality for Israel is that a full peace is very profitable, and that staying on a war footing will destroy the economy. They can only defend against conventional forces by calling the reserves up: which grinds the economy to a halt. As it is, the economy has slowed considerably over the last two years. The bottom line is that a full peace would be a boon to Israel. It would be a boon to the Arabs, but probably not to the Arab governments. > <Calmer now: the main point> > > > the international community could > > recognize that terrorism ... is inherently and intrinsically evil. > > Raised Mennonite I believe that war is inherently and intrinsically evil. > <1>War is inherently evil. > > However as a recovering Mennonite and Athiest I have come to believe that war > is simply a regretable part of the human condition. It is somtimes rational, > and very, very occasionally the least of possible evils and "necessary". > > <2> Very often, even usually, "terrorism" is not an isolated crime but a > rational act of war. > > <2a> Terrorism is typically commited by the weaker party. (This is relevant > since many ethical or moral systems, including Catholic theologies, grant a > "preferential option" to disadvantaged parties--all else being equal.) But, all other things are not equal. Deliberately targeting civilians in lieu of targeting military forces is a tremendous step. Further, I would suggest that you understand the Catholic theology of a just war a bit better before referring to it. A party cannot be the aggressor party and still retain the privilege that you suggest. If you want to go into a discussion of Catholic theology and God's preferential option for the poor and its relevance to this, we can, but (to state it briefly), it hurts far more than helps your case. > <2b> Terrorist acts _per se_ are no worse than some regrettable, but generally > acceptable acts of war. Hmm, Gautam published, on list, generally accepted rules of war, which this contradicts. IIRC, it had to do with what could or could not be declared war crimes. Would you, by any chance, have some reference that contradicts this? > <conclusion> > > In short "terrorism" is a tool of war and statecraft. It is no better or > worse than other forms of socially sanctioned types of violence, force, or > coercion that are more-or-less acceptable for reasons of state or of civil > emergency...or even civil threat. Since Timothy McVey was obviously at a disadvantage with respect to the US government, he was clearly far weaker, was his terrorism also acceptable? > The "legitimacy" of terrorist acts must thus be considered situation and > in the context of ethical conduct in extreme situations, most notable > acceptable behavior by combatants and states in time of war. I suppose you could construct a theoretical case where terrorism could be justified. It certainly isn't here. Considering that the Palestinians are part of the agrees party, that has overtly tried to destroy Israel no less than 4 times, and still having the goal of destroying Israel (and likely killing all the Jews in Israel), its hard to find their behavior ethical. Is there something special about Israel that makes it's destruction ethical? Dan M.
